It is commonly believed that LaRouche is a fringe nutball. Actually, and sadly, much of what he believes is fairly mainstream.

LaRouche believes that the central planning of Lincoln and FDR are to be admired. He believes that corporations should work at the behest of the state. He hates Jefferson, and all good he stands for, and loves Hamilton, and all evils he represents. He loves central banking. None of this is terribly unique.

Sure, LaRouche's ideas are RIDDLED WITH CONTRADICTIONS. He hates the IMF and yet believes we need a "new Bretton Woods" – apparently forgetting that the IMF was created at Bretton Woods. He hates the Federal Reserve and Wilson and yet wants central banking. Whatever. I've met plenty of LaRouchies at Berkeley, and they espouse some weird stuff, but their ideology, aside from obsession with a personality, is nothing unusual, really.

Of course, LaRouche does believe in some strange conspiracy theories, and insists that Benjamin Franklin wrote the Declaration of Independence.

And his followers do know they despise libertarianism. Often as I walk by them, they yell out, "Hey! You think Ludwig von Mises is the path to economic recovery? Mises is the new fascism! You should help LaRouche win the presidency or else witness a new economic downturn!" and similar bizarre diatribes. But LaRouchies are hardly alone in their utter confusion about the world, economics, and history.

I've been trying to get hold of a book written by the LaRouche EIR called "Dope Inc., The Book That Drove Henry Kissinger Crazy". Has anyone read it?

I find EIR writings generally quite perceptive and well researched. Among the issues they've written about that I find to be true, is that Hamas was founded, organised and funded by Israel as a counterforce to PLO and that Israel is blowing up their own citizens via Hamas proxy, so that they can blame the Palestinians for the suicide bombings Israel is actually committing.

It's a valid point to consider, that every time a suicide bombing occurs it always plays in the hands of the Israelis; the Palestinians have nothing to gain from the suicide bombings.

The first time I've read about that was at EIR. I'm not at all familiar with LaRouche's domestic policies, but in international politics he certainly has been very well informed.

__________________Three things are sacred to me: first Truth, and then, in its tracks, primordial prayer; Then virtue–nobility of soul which, in God walks on the path of beauty. Frithjof Schuon

It is commonly believed that LaRouche is a fringe nutball. Actually, and sadly, much of what he believes is fairly mainstream.

LaRouche believes that the central planning of Lincoln and FDR are to be admired. He believes that corporations should work at the behest of the state. He hates Jefferson, and all good he stands for, and loves Hamilton, and all evils he represents. He loves central banking. None of this is terribly unique.

Sure, LaRouche's ideas are RIDDLED WITH CONTRADICTIONS. He hates the IMF and yet believes we need a "new Bretton Woods" – apparently forgetting that the IMF was created at Bretton Woods. He hates the Federal Reserve and Wilson and yet wants central banking. Whatever. I've met plenty of LaRouchies at Berkeley, and they espouse some weird stuff, but their ideology, aside from obsession with a personality, is nothing unusual, really.

Of course, LaRouche does believe in some strange conspiracy theories, and insists that Benjamin Franklin wrote the Declaration of Independence.

And his followers do know they despise libertarianism. Often as I walk by them, they yell out, "Hey! You think Ludwig von Mises is the path to economic recovery? Mises is the new fascism! You should help LaRouche win the presidency or else witness a new economic downturn!" and similar bizarre diatribes. But LaRouchies are hardly alone in their utter confusion about the world, economics, and history.

I think LaRouche is highly useful, I don't know any other source of research that probes further than his team of academics do. If you really want to know who runs what and you want a though historical account then LaRouche is the man to see. The things you would be amazed by may include his study of the green movement and how it came about, ever wondered who financed Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, who runs the World Wildlife Fund. Its a goldmine of useful information and you want to know all the Queen of England’s financial investments, its all been researched and no one I have seen has managed to counter these claims.

Like so many stooges, i cannot believe a man as intelligent as LaRouche can mess it up as much as he does.

I believe he is deeply fascist.

His techniques of focussing on the young and forming these 'cadres' has a hint of Hitler Youth about it. Also their public technique is very 1930's.

He mixes great idea's with seemingly stupid ones. I've never understood his love of the gold standard when he must know HUMUNGOUS options have been put on gold by the big brokerage houses as far back as the mid 90's when all was well.

Now they're cashing in.

His wife is European is she not?

The only highly organised Political party i will believe is NOT a stooge NWO front will be a party espousing the complete decentralisation of power.

Perhaps one espousing real Libertarian values.

In the end it is pointless to focuss on economics. Economics can sort themselves out. We've been trading with each other for thousands of years without the need of an economist.

I agree with Ron Paul when he states that all we need is a government espousing the values of liberty and freedom...the rest will sort itself out.

BvL wrote:
I think LaRouche is highly useful, I don't know any other source of research that probes further than his team of academics do. If you really want to know who runs what and you want a though historical account then LaRouche is the man to see. The things you would be amazed by may include his study of the green movement and how it came about, ever wondered who financed Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, who runs the World Wildlife Fund. Its a goldmine of useful information and you want to know all the Queen of England’s financial investments, its all been researched and no one I have seen has managed to counter these claims.

I have chosen to both link to some good articles from the organisation and link to some material which demonstrate LaRouche's mendacity. As you can see, I have included an e-mail to the movement where I offer to publish any comments they may have to what I have written.